Kaviyarasu v. State of Karnataka

Gitanjali SadanCase Summary

Kaviyarasu v. State of Karnataka

Kaviyarasu v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cr.P. 2222/2020
Before Justice N.K. Sudhindrarao
Decided on May 11, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Bail in a case registered under Section 67B and POCSO Act

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67B)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The complainant is a businessman, having a family consisting of his wife and two children, a girl (14 y/o) and a boy (15 y/o). The complainant has provided the girl with mobile so as to help her with her studies. This also includes the facility for using WhatsApp.
  • On 25th January 2020, a man sent a message on WhatsApp to her number. The message was “Hi. How are u.” The next day, the girl replied asking him who he was. When he was questioned about his identity, he sent bad messages and the photos which were put as status in WhatsApp were used to make obscene and disturbing photos.
  • She was threatened to join the WhatsApp chat, or else he would upload the images on Facebook.
  • A complaint was filed for the same and was registered under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with Section 14 and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
  • The petitioner was arrested on January 30, 2020, and was kept in judicial custody. The application for bail was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was rejected on March 02, 2020, by the Sessions Judge, Kolar.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

Mr. Ismail Muneeb Musba, Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner

  • The petitioner has no criminal antecedents rendering for rejection of bail petition. He is ready to comply with the conditions that may be imposed on him and is ready to offer surety in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner is not a habitual offender.

Mr Thejesh, the Government Pleader:

  • The petitioner has not made out a ground for getting bail. The stay of the petitioner in judicial custody has no relevance for his release as his intentions are not good and conduct is also threatening. He does not appear to be a law-abiding citizen and has committed a heinous offence.

Opinion of the Bench

  • There is no evidence of any criminal background of the accused/petitioner. The bench believes that no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is granted bail and released from the judicial custody. However, conditions can be imposed to resolve the apprehension of the prosecution.

Final Decision

  • The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the like sum.
  • He shall not send any message or call the victim. He shall not come into contact with the complainant or his family members. If any case is registered hereafter against the petitioner of similar nature or other, the benefit of bail granted under this case would stand cancelled.

Personal Opinion

  • Blackmailing minors using obscene photographs is a crime and must not be tolerated at any cost. The conditions set and imposed by the bench on the accused may stop him from not contacting the affected party. However, such acts might be repeated. Therefore, I believe a stronger punishment should have been imposed on the accused for such an act in order to ensure the non-recurrence of such acts.